The sobering reality is that energy consumption continues to rise even as the climate crisis intensifies. Global oil output is projected to increase by about 2.7 percent next year, contingent on how the Ukraine conflict and inflation shape the economy. For now, oil remains abundant, much like coal and natural gas, while other fossil fuels keep humanity at risk.
From the start, major oil companies show reluctance to abandon what some call the apocalypse fuel. They resist rapid decarbonization while claiming environmental responsibility. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has warned that the industry appears to be choking global efforts, noting that transport, industry, and broad segments of the economy still rely on oil.
This is not a metaphor. A study by Influence Map found that oil companies spend about $750 million annually on climate messaging, yet allocate only around 12 percent of their total investment to decarbonization. In plain terms, despite repeated public pledges, the actions behind the scenes do not indicate an immediate shift in course.
The project titled Big Oil’s Agenda 2022 analyzed more than 3,000 messages from the five largest hydrocarbon corporations worldwide, including BP, Shell, Total, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. About 60 percent of these communications mentioned environmental commitments. The study notes that these ads in media, billboards, blogs, and social networks cost roughly $750 million in a single year.
When these numbers are compared to the share earmarked for low carbon efforts in 2022, the commitment stands at just 12 percent of the total budget, ranging from $87,000 to $96,000 million. When asked to substantiate their environmental claims, none of the respondent companies provided verifiable data, according to co-author Faye Holder of Influence Map.
This clash between a deluge of pro climate messaging and actual emissions work is described by Holder as greenwashing.
Powerful oil, gas, and coal lobbies
These companies form formidable coalitions that push back against rapid climate action. Their influence was evident at COP26 in Glasgow, where discussions on decarbonization continued. The largest delegation at the conference did not represent a country but the fossil fuel industry. Global Witness reports that hundreds of attendees at COP26 and COP27 were linked to hydrocarbon interests, aiming to shield their sector from tougher rules.
Global Witness spokesperson Murray Worthy stated that a major reason for the limited progress in UN climate talks over 25 years is the oil lobby’s influence. A historical parallel is drawn with tobacco industry tactics, suggesting that the health community has faced similar resistance from vested interests.
Observers remind that the World Health Organization did not fully address tobacco risks until industry participation was restricted. The same pattern is seen with fossil fuels. COP28 faced scrutiny as questions arose about leadership linked to major oil interests. Several organizations and experts called for a leadership change at the summit, arguing for stronger climate action.
Another prominent lobby group at COP26 was the International Emissions Trading Association. A spokesperson described its mission as finding efficient market approaches to reduce emissions, a broad remit that includes players beyond the fossil fuel sector.
Emission reduction targets under scrutiny
Beyond public relations and political clout, the measured decarbonization targets of large oil and gas companies fall short of what is needed to meet the Paris Agreement goals. A Nature Communications study in collaboration with Climate Analytics concluded that company plans from BP, Shell, and Equinor were not ambitious enough to prevent warming beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
Even the boldest plan among those analyzed is projected to lead to an average warming near 1.65 degrees Celsius. Researchers emphasize that every fraction of a degree counts for climate stability. Bill Hare of Climate Analytics stresses the necessity for oil companies to align with Paris commitments rather than creating scenarios that miss the mark.
In response, a coalition of health professionals and organizations urged governments to ratify a Fossil Fuels Nonproliferation Treaty, a move seen as akin to past disarmament efforts for nuclear weapons. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, described continued fossil fuel reliance as both environmental vandalism and a health risk. Air pollution is cited as a leading cause of death worldwide each year, underscoring the urgency to pivot toward sustainable energy sources.
Guterres has been vocal about the danger of propping up fossil fuels. He criticized the influence of oil, gas, and coal interests on government policy, likening their tactics to those once used by the tobacco industry. He also highlighted the role of banks that continue to finance dirty energy ventures, a sign that systemic financial support remains a barrier to a clean energy transition.
In the near term, the climate conversation remains intensely contested as the broader energy landscape evolves and nations weigh economic realities against environmental imperatives. The challenge ahead is clear: accelerate the shift to energy systems that rely less on oil, gas, and coal while safeguarding public health and the planet.
Note on the discussion: stakeholders and researchers emphasize that the risk to human health from hydrocarbons is immediate and local, not distant. The choice of policy and the pace of implementation will shape health outcomes for communities around the world.